Have to agree numbers in a word confuse people. Web 2.0 I'm already calling it 3, but don't follow my example. How about "government sphere" we used to this word and the web going together.
Jim Kite
· 1 year ago
I like the Quantum government label, though the notion of all possibilities existing and occurring within the black box might be a little freaky for some (and only prove the redundancy of government to others).
Also, not really a comment on your content, but I'm highly amused by your selected image of a flag given that your name means flag in French.
deb lavoy
· 1 year ago
How about of, by and for the people? How about transparent? How about participatory?
Steve Lunceford
· 1 year ago
OK, I'm going with GovSoc or GovSocM (pronounced like Rockem Sockem Robots....) ;-)
Awesometer
· 1 year ago
How about "RoboGov", part man, part giant intercontinental network of computers.
Or SKYNET? GovNet?
Martin
· 1 year ago
Digital Democracy
Lionel Butler
· 1 year ago
Cloud Government? Or go at it gmail style and Lets say the last couple of centuries we've been in "Government Beta" and now we have "The official public release of Government" Or Lastly everybody still likes Apple so, iGovernment - a play on apple and the fact "i" refers to "you" being apart of government
BMOC
· 1 year ago
okay you dunces - the answer is: ClearGov
Mark Drapeau
· 1 year ago
Wow! Some great answers so far - Quantum Government, Clear Government, let's keep this going!!
Martin
· 1 year ago
2.0pen Government
Phil
· 1 year ago
NeoGov
Jeff
· 1 year ago
How about Government Vista.
It won't deliver what's promised. It will be more of a burden than it is worth. It will be riddled with bugs. And ultimately, it'll just be the same crappy product with a new label.
Bob Woolley
· 1 year ago
Go Jeff, this is beautifully expressed cynicism :-)
Steve Lunceford
· 1 year ago
So there's already US.gov, what about You.gov or We.gov or simply Internet.gov? The last one may be the best, because it's simple, everyone at even a basic level understands broadly what "the Internet" is, and the net is the common denominator that allows these tools to work, whether 1.0, 2.0, 3.0 etc...
Also, let's not forget SeriesofTubes.gov, which perhaps brought more notoriety to Sen. Stevens than even his corruption indictment.
Bob Woolley
· 1 year ago
Government 2.0 is kind of a problematic term but it is short and has some common associations. Transparent Government, Open Government, Social Government, Collaborative Government, Next Government, all seem like kind of cumbersome terms with many shades and nuances of meaning. For me at least understanding the outcome of Gov 2.0 might help us to rename it more meaningfully. So I would almost rephrase the question and ask what is the primary result we expect from Gov 2.0 and will renaming it help us to get there? For me Gov 2.0 is collaborative, citizen centric, and transparent government. Are those the key outcomes? If so what is the descriptive buzzword?
Mella
· 1 year ago
BraveNewGov
Mark Drapeau
· 1 year ago
How about BrandNewGov? Get it, double-meaning - it's a brand new government, but we also need a new brand for government. Keep the ideas coming!! Thanks!!
David
· 1 year ago
Just curious about the "web 2.0" connection to "govt. 2.0" because you know the "social" in social media could stand for Socialist?
@jeff - I think I like the Govt. Vista concept. It gets my vote.
W. David Stephenson
· 1 year ago
WeGov -- it's not just the 2.0 technology, but the collaborative spirit that underlies it.
Scott Schablow
· 1 year ago
How about Pluribus Government. From e Pluribus Unum (out of many, one)
Scott Schablow
· 1 year ago
Or maybe Government Confab.
karma_musings
· 1 year ago
I vote for ClearGov (even if BMOC's presentation of the term is a bit snarky ;-) ) - succinct, denotes openness, accountability - which we haven't had for 8 years.
Emma
· 1 year ago
Oh I don't know, how about...democracy?!
Isn't this what democracy has always supposed to have been - participation from everyone?
And why oh why (I know you've already complained/noticed this, Mark) hasn't Obama updated his Twitter since the election? He should be tweeting this question out.
steven mandzik
· 1 year ago
Not sure we need a big change here. The transition site is already using this term and it has been broadly applied for several years now:
Open Government
Julie Baker
· 1 year ago
G-Crowd (like G men but gender neutral) or CrowdG PerfectUnion WeThePeeps CrowdGov OneNation CrowdUS (double meaning with reference to the United States and "us") LuvGov CrowdDem
Jen Simmons
· 1 year ago
Well, it's not government 2.0 — it's more like government 78.0.
To me, what is this called?
Democracy.
We just haven't seen actual democracy in such a long time, we think it's new.
Michael Chin
· 1 year ago
This may be the one opportunity to NOT get caught up in tech marketing jargon. Why not just Government. Did we rename it when we went from the pony express to the modern day postal system? Do the Government's 'customers' really care or are we as an industry just stroking our egos?
Yael K. Miller
· 1 year ago
Mark, I read your article more than once and I still can't find where you explain why you would call "government," anything but "government." It's possible I missed your explanation. I understand you're asking people to rename the term "government 2.0" but why have that term in the first place?
"2.0" or whatever you end up calling it means that there's a fundamental change in the way something works. The way the US government works did not change from this election. The essence of the US government with its checks and balances has not changed. Change in government is not as simple as slapping a bumper sticker on your car with a picture of Obama and the word "change" underneath it. Or putting up a website and calling it "change.gov"
Change in government can be directly seen by the amendments to the Bill of Rights. We have no great causes that need to be rectified by an amendment. Unless you count gay marriage, which I doubt will be made into an amendment under the new president.
Sean Hudson
· 1 year ago
- interGov (integrative, participatory)
- openGov (more transparency, available to masses, by the masses)
The problem with monikers like Web2.0 (and Gov2.0), other than being tired marketing jargon, is that they suggest an incremental step, yet each "step" has no meaning and cannot be measurable. One would expect the naming to be ordinal and eventually we would have a Web3.0 (or Gov3.0). So, what is encompassed in Gov2.0? Beats me you could ask the first person that popularized the term. That said, terms like Web2.0 (and Gov2.0) do have usefulness. When giving presentations, I've found that most people equate Web2.0 as - change, more participation, new tools, new technologies, transparancy, etc. While it's vague, it sometimes serves it's purpose.
Sean
Lindy
· 1 year ago
How about Government Interactive? Isn't that what web 2.0 is? Making the Internet more interactive, engaging in a conversation, building a community? And isn't that what good government does - involve the community through democracy? And I'm conservative, currently rather a-political, and really can't figure out why everyone is so swept up into thinking the new administration will change the face of government and new media...I think most people who have been in government very long realize that's not likely. And if so - I'm not crediting Obama - I believe conservatives were among the first twittering from the floors of Congress!
Andrea Baker
· 1 year ago
I think I officially killed the term Web 2.0 at wireices this September. You were there remember? Anyhoo... when I talk I explain the web is in the user-driven web state, the semantic web is the future. I hate using "2.0" terms, but since most clients and people we talk to hear these buzz words its hard to shake them from it to learn another.
For Government it is almost the same thing, its a user/constituent/tax-payer/participant driven Government that we are moving to. In fact, I think its closer to the Gettysburg Address than ever before:
"...that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."
My answer is not meant to be consideration for a prize, since I already own a mug.
Joel
· 1 year ago
How about we go Matrix on Government 2.0 with "Zion", the rise of the people against the machines?
Noel Dickover
· 1 year ago
I think part of the problem is that "Web 2.0" as a term has come to mean something far larger than social software - it talks about all the new and emerging "cool" things that people are doing on the web. Some of them, like Software as a Service, RSS aggregation methods, and mashups have little to do with social interaction, while others are steeped in it. As some point (perhaps 2-3 years ago), the term begins to lose its meaning as its usage expands.
I would suggest we look at decomposing Web 2.0 into its component parts. In looking at social software, this means we begin to create a history chain whereby online communities and listservs move to threaded discussions and extended communities of practice, and eventually to the myriad of options we now associate with social software.
Regarding the larger use of Web 2.0 in government, that term has already been decided, and in fact already has a website: "Change.gov." But just as clearly, many individual efforts will fall under that, including the most recent DoD wiki effort, DoD Techipedia.
Michael Russell
· 1 year ago
First, this is a fine, on-point article, like virtually all of Mark Drapeau's work for Mashable. It's enjoyable to read both his ideas on this topic, and some of the genuinely insightful contributions of others, as well.
Besides, if we stick with the Web/Gov/Health/Socks/Goldfish x.0 thing, some of us will be unable to resist the temptation to think about incremental upgrades. After all, if we're continually improving it, shouldn't government 2.0 become 2.1?
Do we get Government 2.1.1 when a soon-to-be-former U.S. Senator receives his federal BOP uniform?
How about 2.1.1.1 when certain agencies authorize the use of something newer than Netscape Navigator for official web browsing?
When POTUS-elect Obama finally quits smoking, is this considered an update or just a (nicotine) patch?
While my inner geek pines for Quantum Government, NanoGov and similar such fanciful stuff, my inner communicator wins out: If we're going to create meaningful slogans and neologisms for everyone that signify at least an earnest effort to really listen and really collaborate, then let's keep 'em short, sweet and simple.
I'll even proffer one that combines populism, tech and rock 'n roll memes into one: YouToo.
So there. You're on notice, Uncle S@m.
Alain Lemay
· 1 year ago
In the vernacular, the term quantum leap has come to mean an abrupt change or "step change", especially an advance or augmentation. Perhaps Obama's use of Social Media is indeed representative of an abrupt change as compared to the usual adoption rate of technologies by government.
But in real physical systems a quantum leap is not necessarily a large change, and can in fact be very insignificant. In this case, assuming a true adoption of social media and nit just a passing fancy, it would indeed be a large change so I am not sure the term Quantum would apply.
Since in theory, government is supposed to be "of the people for the people", and since this is perhaps the first true example of this seen in modern times, I would suggest True Government as the new term.
Andrew Krzmarzick
· 1 year ago
I think I saw the term WeGov above. The reason I like it is because it ties indirectly to the eGov aspect of the President's Management Agenda (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/egov)...but it broadens eGov to include social media and the transparent, collaborative spirit that is evoked when we say "Government 2.0" or "Web 2.0".
So there it is: WeGov - With the People (no longer "of, by and for").
BMOC
· 1 year ago
"WeGov" is clearly socialism. I prefer "MeGov" - although "ClearGov" is decidedly superior. But what about something like, I don't know, "1984 2.0"?
Mark Drapeau
· 1 year ago
I'm really liking some of these suggestions. ClearGov, WeGov, WeThePeeps, OpenGov....There is some depth, some story, some double-meaning here. I think that's important. Some of the others perhaps wouldn't get widespread use, but they're very creative!! Can't wait to see what other ideas flow in!!!!
Andrea Baker
· 1 year ago
In talking with colleagues, I remember we've been down this road before, specifically on Maxine Teller's blog (@mixtmedia).
Additionally, I speak my thoughts about the "2.0" thing in an upcoming interview in Executive Biz. I'll tweet the link when it comes out.
mixtmedia
· 11 months ago
Thanks for bringing our conversation on my blog into the mix, Andrea. :)
Joe smith
· 1 year ago
BMOC is clearly an idiot
Steph
· 1 year ago
I agree with Andrew.. I think the term WeGov represents what social media can bring to government..a direct conversation with our government.
Joe smith
· 1 year ago
govreboot
Taylor Norrish
· 1 year ago
I vote to stick with Government 2.0
It's true, "web 2.0" is tired and annoying, but that doesn't mean the "2.0" moniker shouldn't be used for other purposes.
Why is Government 2.0 good? Adding the 2.0 already means something to people... evolution, modern, social, change, updates.
If you say Government 2.0, people will get it. You say Quantum Government... not many are going to get it.
We are trying to build and launch Government 2.0; let's call it what it is.
My $.02 :)
bob ashley
· 1 year ago
I agree with Taylor. Gov2.0 has gained significant truck, enjoying widespread uptake, and appears to telegraph a distinct semantic field. I think we need to watch our own lust for the new like we would an untrustworthy dog. If all we're going to do is substitute one buzz phrase for another, we'll tire of that soon enough too, no matter what. In any case, this sort of craving to control the lexicon is completely beyond anyone's control, always has been. Nobody in the times of Middle English said, "You know what? Calling the flesh of fruit "meat" is really dumb. We oughta stop it!" It dies of its own accord.
Funny, no one says, "Aren't you sick of the metaphors that says the sun "rises" and "sets". The sun does nothing of the kind, yet it sticks. These things have settled into our consciousness as literal, not figurative.
I neither like nor dislike the term gov2.0. People in our communicative community seems to share a good deal about what that phrase means, so it's still useful. If all the quest is about is the new kewl, then we're just fad chasers anyhoo. "Quantum" is certainly kewl, but like a new tattoo. The shine would fade in a week because it has absolutely no semantic relation to the web, nor does it communicate the notion of incremental advancement the way 2.0 does.
My vote is to let gov2.0 die a natural death.
bob
Michael Russell
· 1 year ago
WE THE PEEPS: Could have broad appeal to urban youth and people familiar with obscure novelty songs (http://is.gd/7aSx) of the 1920's/30's.
MEGOV: Good choice for narcissists ...or readers of Ayn Rand books.
Jeff's Government Vista more likely scenario ...to be followed promptly by retrograde to WinGov XP, or switch to either GovOSX or GOVUX.
Joe smith
· 1 year ago
BMOC is alright i guess. i like "19842.0" because it is a long number. i like long numbers better than short numbers
Joe smith
· 1 year ago
2.0bama
Andrea Baker
· 1 year ago
@joe smith
that was cute
Carey Bandler
· 1 year ago
DR TATTOO, because it wouldn't be Federal Government name without an acronym. :D
Democracy Redefined
Transparency And Technology Trumping Orwellian Objectives
Nater Kane
· 1 year ago
Democratus - and if you're curious as to why... feel free to email me at nater@democratus.org
Jorge Escobar
· 1 year ago
I just finished an article on my blog, The Possibility Of An Open Source Democracy http://cli.gs/nHYXE9 which dreams about this possibility of rebooting the Government's figure from being the leading actor to more of a Project Manager.
I really like OpenGov as a name, but there's much more than a name to this as we all know.
Adam R.
· 1 year ago
I like the "Open Government" and "We Government" and I'll throw out a brainstorm of other ideas:
- Government Too (as in you're included, also) - Government Now - NGG (Next Generation Government) - Government New Point Oh!
Tracy
· 1 year ago
I LOVE "WeThePeeps"
Kevin Bondelli
· 1 year ago
I have been calling it User-Generated Government. I decided to write a post on it after reading this.
Wow. Really interesting how this "fun" contest has evolved into a more serious discussion about using "2.0" and if the community (or average people) should, and how. It's great. Frankly, as popular as it is, it's hard to imagine my mother or my senior bosses using that term and I like hearing lots of fresh ideas. Maybe I should give out better prizes? A cruise with my friend Shelby? (j/k)
As far as ideas go, I'm taking my time deciding anything and there will be plenty of time to add your ideas to the pile. Seems like there is some agreement among readers that ClearGov and WeGov are catchy, simple names. What do you think? Keep contributing your ideas; I'll be reading them in between sessions of judging Apps for Democracy in DC tomorrow!!
Michele Zenkowich
· 1 year ago
Mark,
I don't have much time to flesh this out, but, instead of Government 2.0, why not "GovernmentUS". That goes beyond citizen-centered government, or rather, takes it to a different level where the citizens AND the government have a role to play. It's more of a 2-way street. Not just providung information/forms for citizens, but actually having a conversation with them.
Judy Lederman
· 1 year ago
Government: The Sequel
RetroGov
DepressoGov
RecessoGov
GimmeGov
JRSchmitt
· 1 year ago
As a person with sincere disdain of the crippling phrase of "2.0" (As in when did the MicroSoft Windows example become good branding?) There are a lot of options and some good suggestions already, but may I add:
1) Government (plain simple and like most entities one that naturally evolves; we have yet to see a successful company rename itself XXX 2.0) 2) Govolve (gov't evolved) 3) Governwoment (because a woman is technically man 2.0) 4) GovWorks (may already be taken, like EzGov) 5) Governrevolution (too long for the Scrabble table) 6) ReGov (so fitting and ties in to the whole: reduce, reuse, recycle) 7) GovernWell (more on the healthcare theme idea)
I could keep going, but I'm excited to see where the contest leads you, or perhaps lead us?
Emma
· 1 year ago
Bold statement, for the Obama lovers: The reason 2.0bama used social media so much is because it was just becoming popular/available! Why hasn't he updated his Twitter stream since the election? At the very least he can set up twitterfeed to use change.gov to update his Twitter.
Again, I don't think government is going to change that much - and I'm a huge optimist! Even if it did, it's still democracy.
Not democracy 2.0, just democracy.
Either that or we should name it after cats, a la Mac. GovCheetah.
Kevin Bondelli
· 1 year ago
I think that the administration isn't necessarily going to do it on their own, but we may be able to apply pressure on them to start moving in that direction. It isn't going to be easy, but if we are committed to it we can make it happen.
Chris Heuer
· 1 year ago
I think after reading through all of these I like WeGov best
As I said the other day, the big difference of this next generation of technology enabled government is that it takes our standard representative government model (FOR the people) and turns it into a more scalable participatory model (WITH the people).
The only other thing that comes to mind is some variant of DITG (do it together government) but that is awkward...
Michael Bailey
· 1 year ago
Here are a few suggestions which might make sense.
1) Former Government. 2) The Government formerly known as corrupt. 3) Government. Abolished.
Stephanie Gerson
· 1 year ago
>>user-generated government
>>we the government
>>collaborative government
>>perpetual beta government
>>long-tail government
>>peer-to-peer government/P2P government
>>distributed government
>>Ludo-Government
and finally..........
>>Government 2.0: Rename Me, Please (which ultimately, by letting us participate in renaming the government, says it all)
Peter Gray
· 1 year ago
How about "Citizen Gov"?
Dominic Campbell
· 1 year ago
Good to see you've come down off your high horse and accepted the need for change:
I have to agree with Michael Chin, why not just call it government? Or when you want to emphasize the dramatic new Web2.0 related technologies being brought into government we can certainly say gov2.0, but in reality it is the same great system dreamed up by our founding fathers.
Ari Herzog
· 1 year ago
Hi Mark (and the 72 commenters above me as I type this),
Since you linked to my critique of you, I'd like to thank you for the link but add that if you look at http://www.ariwriter.com/?s=drapeau you will see that I've since attributed you in praises in four subsequent posts, the latest with the non-ubiquitous title, attributed to NIC's Hillary Hartley, "eGov, iGov, we all Gov." Clearly, my initial critique of you has changed; and I wanted to put that out there.
Second, in the spirit of change and President-elect Obama's change.gov site, I agree with Michael Chin and Bob Gourley that it is nonsensical to dream up new names for something that would confuse the majority of the American public -- those who do not have broadband access, are not attuned to social media, never used Facebook, would never read Mashable, etc.
Third, the day before Election Day, I wrote on my blog a top 10 list why versioning the web is silly. For the same reason that Web 2.0 is silly to people who never heard of Web 1.0, Government 2.0 is equally silly: http://www.ariwriter.com/2008/11/top-10-reasons...
That said, I agree that WeGov is catchy -- but WeGov only is sensical to those of us on Mashable and aware of change.gov; to my mom, Government 2.0 (let alone e-Government) is Greek. Government is Government. Web is Web. Mobile is Mobile. Let's try and prevent the founding fathers and Noah Webster from rolling in their graves from versioning his lexicon.
And thanks again for the link. :)
-Ari
Julie Baker
· 1 year ago
I still like WeThe Peeps and think the creator needs a raise. :-)
WeGov and OpenGov are really nice, too.
And what's wrong with the Change.gov concept/URLthat the Obama-Biden transition team is using? How exactly will this monicker be used? Is it the name of something intangible or tangiblet? Is it a movement or philosophy? Is it a particular government department? A website? A place for people to share/post/discuss? I love brainstorming titles but they might be more relevant if I know what I'm naming! :-) Other ideas:
CitizenVoice OpenVoice ShoutOut NowWhat? GovNow (Hmmmm. Did someone already say that one?) GovUS (also sounds vaguely familiar...?) Peeps.gov
I'll stop...for now.
W. David Stephenson
· 1 year ago
Glad to see so many people like WeGov (I want that CIA mug!).
However, in the spirit of real participation, I'm suggesting WiiGov, with an accompanying game that both people in nursing homes and kids in day care can use to virtually navigate the Halls of Congress, shake down lobbyists, etc. People from the Sunlight Foundation will NOT be allowed to play.
Helen Mosher
· 1 year ago
In public administration theory (being somewhat immersed in it right now in grad school) there is a movement toward "digital governance"--coined in 2005, which may emerge as the model replacing the lacklusterly named "new public management" or NPM theory that dominated the previous quarter century or so. What term might embrace the aspects of government that 2.0 technologies enable? Is netsocial governance one element of digital governance? Do we need some other word to encompass the collaborative aspect of 2.0 technologies?
Neil Bonner
· 1 year ago
What about: iGov. Remember we once had eGov as a program...
Chris Parente
· 1 year ago
Don't think we should change term yet, more change needed on the ground first. And while this crowd may be sick of the term, still useful term for broader gov't community.
My two cents. I realize that means I'm not in the running for the mug. ;-)
GovLoop gets my vote as I run a social network to connecting the gov't community called GovLoop.com. :)
A good debate but I agree with Mark's earlier post...people need to stop talking and start doing. There are a lot of easy wins to improve government using Gov 2.0 (or whatever) tools/approaches. The greatest value of most of these projects is that they are quick and cheap rather than the typical 5-year, $100 million government project.
Joe Boutte
· 1 year ago
I thought that e-Government was a very useful term, but it is limiting. I like most of the names here, but none of the names will change government or create results. Suppose that we get Washington and all the brain power focused on efficient government (could be e-Government). The bottom line is that we need solutions and not buzzwords. If any of the names cause increased interest and problem-solving, I'm all for it.
Rob
· 1 year ago
i love the acronym for "user generated government" -- potentially spot-on.
Jeff Geiser
· 1 year ago
My choice: my.gov
Rene Moffatt
· 1 year ago
Speaking in generalities:
Let's say government is top down and 2.0 is bottom up (grassroots, etc) But a well run government listens to its people, allows for open dialogue, and if government is wise, then make an informed decision about policy etc... in essence acting like a true democracy.
trueGOV
or
truGOV
akispicer
· 1 year ago
i say LEAVE IT "2.0"...the 2.0 language isn't for us social savvy smarties in the room who "get it" - its for the rest of the planet who don't get it. And those people are the ones we're trying to evangelize. Evangelize with simple, clear language so they stop fearing us (and tech change) and start "getting it". "Quantum Government" and "Semantic Web" is just not user friendly language for evangelizing change, ya'll.
Leave Government 2.0 alone!
*though i do like "OpenGov", too.
Bud Higgins
· 1 year ago
How about GoverNet. i really want the NWC mug (I'm a grad - 2006) Trying for second place.
Andrea Baker
· 1 year ago
Hello. Isn't it obvious, we gotta call it "SkyNet". This is the only way John Connor can have his revolution.
Geoff Livingston
· 1 year ago
I call it government. It's nice that the toolset makes it easier, but it's the same animal.
W. David Stephenson
· 1 year ago
I really do think the approach needs something to distinguish it from past practices: not necessarily 2.0, because the specific technologies can and will change in the future, but definitely to mark a profound shift from the days when government was remote and gave us what it decided to give us, rather than being the true partnership that developments such as the Apps for Democracy contest, in which the public were the source not only of inspiration, but actual, functional services. Hence, WeGov
Phil
· 1 year ago
I will give it another try. How about .gov or DotGov, GovDotGov?
JB
· 1 year ago
How about 'theUS.gov". (Pronounced thee-us) Obviously, US has a double meaning, symbolizing both the United States and the people taking ownership of it while keeping the 'one-ness' philosophy of 2.0.
MITS Engineering college
· 1 year ago
MITS Engineering College,Best Institute in Orissa, India
Scott Stead
· 1 year ago
My initial thoughts were DigiGov, GoVii, GovRev2 etc. But I agree with the previous comment about putting a number on it -much like the processor in my Mac - by the time we name it/brand it, etc we'll be on to version 3. How about GovEvolution, Govolution, or how about we accept that Government like the Web is still just the government - it's just evolving, changing. There is no Web 2.0. There is no Web 3.0 - there is just the web. We may be moving toward Digital Governance but its all the same - just in a new format - with new input/output methods. The rebranding of everything to reflect the technology wrapped around it seems a bit pointless. NextNewGov, Govvle, GovX, call it what you will - it's the same inefficient, bureaucratic hodgepodge it always was - just with shiny new toys and tools they're reluctant to use because OMG - if they really used Web 2.0 to the fullest it might offer some sort of transparency in their daily doings.
==RANT OVER==
Joy Fulton
· 1 year ago
If a new name is needed, maybe GLP? Government Leaps Forward, Great Leap Forward? Similar to GDP and GNP, maybe it will satisfy the government's need for a more perfect acronym.
If a url is needed - for a government equivalent of Facebook so one could actually get to know one's leaders and civil servants directly from the source maybe these could be considered: glp.gov us.gov new.gov open.gov agencies.gov fed.gov federal.gov
Dan Sheerin
· 1 year ago
Interesting and important exchange ... Indeed, as Benjamin Disraeli put it:
"Few ideas are correct ones, and which they are none can tell, but with words we govern men."
I have participated in similar discussions, within the USG, about possibly changing the name of Intelink and Intellipedia. In this regard, I see these USG "Intelligence" community derived labels as having a lot of baggage, and as not being particularly helpful in terms of breaking down barriers among USG agencies, US citizens and indeed the nations and peoples of the world – entities that all need to do a much better job sharing information vital to U.S. and international peace, prosperity and security.
Also in regards to choosing appropriate and useful names to describe our policy efforts, about a decade ago now I undertook a quixotic attempt to help end the use of the retrograde and counterproductive term "the post-Cold War era.†My suggestion was a U.S. foreign policy described by the term "Fair Peace." See this site for more detail on this suggestion: http://web.archive.org/web/20040210181109/http:...
Back to the specific subject at hand ... I do appreciate the term "OpenGov." As late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan wrote in his 1998 book Secrecy:
"The 'what-ifs' are intriguing. What if the United States had recognized Soviet weakness earlier on and accordingly kept its own budget in order, so that upon the breakup of the Soviet Union a momentous economic aid program could have commenced? What if we had better calculated the forces of ethnicity so that we could have avoided going directly from the 'end' of the Cold War to a new Balkan War, leaving little attention and far fewer resources for the shattered Soviet empire? There it rests, with the one remaining large and positive possibility. Openness. East and West paid hideous costs for keeping matters of state closed to the people whom the states embodied ... A case can be made that ... secrecy is for losers. For people who don't know how important information really is. The Soviet Union realized this too late. Openness is now a singular, and singularly American, advantage. We put it in peril by poking along in the mode of an age now post. It is time to dismantle government secrecy, this most pervasive of Cold War-era regulations. It is time to begin building the supports for the era of openness that is already upon us."
However, I understand “openness†and “OpenGov†more as means to the ends we are seeking, and not our actual goal. Harkening back to my earlier suggestion for a new “Fair Peace†name for U.S. foreign policy in a new geo-political era, I would suggest that our new name to replace "Gov 2.0" specifically speak to what we hope to accomplish, not how we hope the means we intend to use.
Reprising yet updating Harry Truman's vision, I suggest the "Digital Fair Deal" as our new name and agenda. As Truman put it: "Every segment of our population and every individual has a right to expect from our Government a fair deal." The information age and its empowering digital technology makes engagement by every segment of our society and by every individual a much more achievable initiative, thereby making the policy goals of a fair deal much more feasible. A Digital Fair Deal would also speak to the U.S. Government’s foreign policy agenda, or as Truman once put it: "What we envisage is a program of (international) development based on the concepts of democratic fair-dealing."
Obviously this name change proposal goes well beyond the concept of "government," and undertakes to provide a outcome-focused slogan that typically would like come from some official, high level member of the new government. Yet substantially changing things, and expanding who has impact beyond traditional offical roles, is essentially what this sort of initiative is all about.
Mark Drapeau
· 1 year ago
There will be a follow-up post about this shortly!!
Kevin Curry
· 1 year ago
It seems we are trying to name/rename a concept of boundless meaning. I don't see anything wrong with Government 2.0, per se. I just want clearer understanding of what we mean when we say Government 2.0. I think the diversity of nominations here suggests only a loosely shared understanding of what was meant by the original term. Is it enough to say that Government 2.0 is a domain-specific application of Web 2.0? Some here have asserted it's more than technology. I agree. (Web 2.0 is not tech, either BTW. It's tech that recognizes/leverages the profound role of human behavior and scale.) So, at minimum it seems would follow a model. We can start by answering the question: how do the observations and principles of Web 2.0 map to Government 2.0? Maybe that leads to a new name and maybe it doesn't. I dare say it will lead to a better shared understanding.
Patrick
· 1 year ago
Not sure if anyone has added this one yet.
Gov 2.0-2U.
Yes, it keeps the overused Gov 2.0. But it gives it context with the reason for why we need Gov 2.0. And while the tech folk have tired of 2.0, the average folk are only getting around to understanding it.
I should know , I sell Internet connections for a living.
Thanks for the informative blog.
Patrick
Joe Boutte
· 1 year ago
How about Gov 2.0 2U4U?
Government for the people!
makco
· 11 months ago
wow
Gerald Green
· 10 months ago
For God sakes, Obama, do what YOU think is right on the stimulus, not what the Republicans want. They will vote against you anyway. You are trying to save jobs and time's a' wasting fast.
Gerald Green
· 10 months ago
For God sakes, Obama, do what YOU think is right on the stimulus, not what the Republicans want. They will vote against you anyway. You are trying to save jobs and time's a' wasting fast.
All Comments
How about "government sphere" we used to this word and the web going together.
Also, not really a comment on your content, but I'm highly amused by your selected image of a flag given that your name means flag in French.
How about transparent?
How about participatory?
Or SKYNET? GovNet?
Or go at it gmail style and Lets say the last couple of centuries we've been in "Government Beta" and now we have "The official public release of Government"
Or Lastly everybody still likes Apple so, iGovernment - a play on apple and the fact "i" refers to "you" being apart of government
It won't deliver what's promised.
It will be more of a burden than it is worth.
It will be riddled with bugs.
And ultimately, it'll just be the same crappy product with a new label.
Also, let's not forget SeriesofTubes.gov, which perhaps brought more notoriety to Sen. Stevens than even his corruption indictment.
@jeff - I think I like the Govt. Vista concept. It gets my vote.
Isn't this what democracy has always supposed to have been - participation from everyone?
And why oh why (I know you've already complained/noticed this, Mark) hasn't Obama updated his Twitter since the election? He should be tweeting this question out.
Open Government
PerfectUnion
WeThePeeps
CrowdGov
OneNation
CrowdUS (double meaning with reference to the United States and "us")
LuvGov
CrowdDem
To me, what is this called?
Democracy.
We just haven't seen actual democracy in such a long time, we think it's new.
"2.0" or whatever you end up calling it means that there's a fundamental change in the way something works. The way the US government works did not change from this election. The essence of the US government with its checks and balances has not changed. Change in government is not as simple as slapping a bumper sticker on your car with a picture of Obama and the word "change" underneath it. Or putting up a website and calling it "change.gov"
Change in government can be directly seen by the amendments to the Bill of Rights. We have no great causes that need to be rectified by an amendment. Unless you count gay marriage, which I doubt will be made into an amendment under the new president.
- openGov (more transparency, available to masses, by the masses)
The problem with monikers like Web2.0 (and Gov2.0), other than being tired marketing jargon, is that they suggest an incremental step, yet each "step" has no meaning and cannot be measurable. One would expect the naming to be ordinal and eventually we would have a Web3.0 (or Gov3.0). So, what is encompassed in Gov2.0? Beats me you could ask the first person that popularized the term. That said, terms like Web2.0 (and Gov2.0) do have usefulness. When giving presentations, I've found that most people equate Web2.0 as - change, more participation, new tools, new technologies, transparancy, etc. While it's vague, it sometimes serves it's purpose.
Sean
For Government it is almost the same thing, its a user/constituent/tax-payer/participant driven Government that we are moving to. In fact, I think its closer to the Gettysburg Address than ever before:
"...that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."
My answer is not meant to be consideration for a prize, since I already own a mug.
I would suggest we look at decomposing Web 2.0 into its component parts. In looking at social software, this means we begin to create a history chain whereby online communities and listservs move to threaded discussions and extended communities of practice, and eventually to the myriad of options we now associate with social software.
Regarding the larger use of Web 2.0 in government, that term has already been decided, and in fact already has a website: "Change.gov." But just as clearly, many individual efforts will fall under that, including the most recent DoD wiki effort, DoD Techipedia.
Personally, I'm all for a new, cliché-free naming convention for all of this. Or at least a new set of clichés to replace the ones we're using now.
Besides, if we stick with the Web/Gov/Health/Socks/Goldfish x.0 thing, some of us will be unable to resist the temptation to think about incremental upgrades. After all, if we're continually improving it, shouldn't government 2.0 become 2.1?
Do we get Government 2.1.1 when a soon-to-be-former U.S. Senator receives his federal BOP uniform?
How about 2.1.1.1 when certain agencies authorize the use of something newer than Netscape Navigator for official web browsing?
When POTUS-elect Obama finally quits smoking, is this considered an update or just a (nicotine) patch?
Since this morning, I've been especially partial to this gent's (http://twitter.com/DavidStephenson) coinage: WeGov.
While my inner geek pines for Quantum Government, NanoGov and similar such fanciful stuff, my inner communicator wins out: If we're going to create meaningful slogans and neologisms for everyone that signify at least an earnest effort to really listen and really collaborate, then let's keep 'em short, sweet and simple.
I'll even proffer one that combines populism, tech and rock 'n roll memes into one: YouToo.
So there. You're on notice, Uncle S@m.
But in real physical systems a quantum leap is not necessarily a large change, and can in fact be very insignificant. In this case, assuming a true adoption of social media and nit just a passing fancy, it would indeed be a large change so I am not sure the term Quantum would apply.
Since in theory, government is supposed to be "of the people for the people", and since this is perhaps the first true example of this seen in modern times, I would suggest True Government as the new term.
So there it is: WeGov - With the People (no longer "of, by and for").
Additionally, I speak my thoughts about the "2.0" thing in an upcoming interview in Executive Biz. I'll tweet the link when it comes out.
It's true, "web 2.0" is tired and annoying, but that doesn't mean the "2.0" moniker shouldn't be used for other purposes.
Why is Government 2.0 good? Adding the 2.0 already means something to people... evolution, modern, social, change, updates.
If you say Government 2.0, people will get it. You say Quantum Government... not many are going to get it.
We are trying to build and launch Government 2.0; let's call it what it is.
My $.02 :)
Funny, no one says, "Aren't you sick of the metaphors that says the sun "rises" and "sets". The sun does nothing of the kind, yet it sticks. These things have settled into our consciousness as literal, not figurative.
I neither like nor dislike the term gov2.0. People in our communicative community seems to share a good deal about what that phrase means, so it's still useful. If all the quest is about is the new kewl, then we're just fad chasers anyhoo. "Quantum" is certainly kewl, but like a new tattoo. The shine would fade in a week because it has absolutely no semantic relation to the web, nor does it communicate the notion of incremental advancement the way 2.0 does.
My vote is to let gov2.0 die a natural death.
bob
MEGOV: Good choice for narcissists ...or readers of Ayn Rand books.
Jeff's Government Vista more likely scenario ...to be followed promptly by retrograde to WinGov XP, or switch to either GovOSX or GOVUX.
that was cute
Democracy
Redefined
Transparency
And
Technology
Trumping
Orwellian
Objectives
I really like OpenGov as a name, but there's much more than a name to this as we all know.
- Government Too (as in you're included, also)
- Government Now
- NGG (Next Generation Government)
- Government New Point Oh!
http://www.kevinbondelli.com/2008/11/12/user-ge...
http://tinyurl.com/3cuaj8
As far as ideas go, I'm taking my time deciding anything and there will be plenty of time to add your ideas to the pile. Seems like there is some agreement among readers that ClearGov and WeGov are catchy, simple names. What do you think? Keep contributing your ideas; I'll be reading them in between sessions of judging Apps for Democracy in DC tomorrow!!
I don't have much time to flesh this out, but, instead of Government 2.0, why not "GovernmentUS". That goes beyond citizen-centered government, or rather, takes it to a different level where the citizens AND the government have a role to play. It's more of a 2-way street. Not just providung information/forms for citizens, but actually having a conversation with them.
RetroGov
DepressoGov
RecessoGov
GimmeGov
1) Government (plain simple and like most entities one that naturally evolves; we have yet to see a successful company rename itself XXX 2.0)
2) Govolve (gov't evolved)
3) Governwoment (because a woman is technically man 2.0)
4) GovWorks (may already be taken, like EzGov)
5) Governrevolution (too long for the Scrabble table)
6) ReGov (so fitting and ties in to the whole: reduce, reuse, recycle)
7) GovernWell (more on the healthcare theme idea)
I could keep going, but I'm excited to see where the contest leads you, or perhaps lead us?
Again, I don't think government is going to change that much - and I'm a huge optimist! Even if it did, it's still democracy.
Not democracy 2.0, just democracy.
Either that or we should name it after cats, a la Mac. GovCheetah.
As I said the other day, the big difference of this next generation of technology enabled government is that it takes our standard representative government model (FOR the people) and turns it into a more scalable participatory model (WITH the people).
The only other thing that comes to mind is some variant of DITG (do it together government) but that is awkward...
1) Former Government.
2) The Government formerly known as corrupt.
3) Government. Abolished.
>>we the government
>>collaborative government
>>perpetual beta government
>>long-tail government
>>peer-to-peer government/P2P government
>>distributed government
>>Ludo-Government
and finally..........
>>Government 2.0: Rename Me, Please
(which ultimately, by letting us participate in renaming the government, says it all)
http://twitter.com/dominiccampbell/statuses/908...
http://twitter.com/dominiccampbell/statuses/908...
http://twitter.com/dominiccampbell/statuses/908...
(BTW Open Government gets my vote)
Since you linked to my critique of you, I'd like to thank you for the link but add that if you look at http://www.ariwriter.com/?s=drapeau you will see that I've since attributed you in praises in four subsequent posts, the latest with the non-ubiquitous title, attributed to NIC's Hillary Hartley, "eGov, iGov, we all Gov." Clearly, my initial critique of you has changed; and I wanted to put that out there.
Second, in the spirit of change and President-elect Obama's change.gov site, I agree with Michael Chin and Bob Gourley that it is nonsensical to dream up new names for something that would confuse the majority of the American public -- those who do not have broadband access, are not attuned to social media, never used Facebook, would never read Mashable, etc.
Third, the day before Election Day, I wrote on my blog a top 10 list why versioning the web is silly. For the same reason that Web 2.0 is silly to people who never heard of Web 1.0, Government 2.0 is equally silly: http://www.ariwriter.com/2008/11/top-10-reasons...
That said, I agree that WeGov is catchy -- but WeGov only is sensical to those of us on Mashable and aware of change.gov; to my mom, Government 2.0 (let alone e-Government) is Greek. Government is Government. Web is Web. Mobile is Mobile. Let's try and prevent the founding fathers and Noah Webster from rolling in their graves from versioning his lexicon.
And thanks again for the link. :)
-Ari
WeGov and OpenGov are really nice, too.
And what's wrong with the Change.gov concept/URLthat the Obama-Biden transition team is using? How exactly will this monicker be used? Is it the name of something intangible or tangiblet? Is it a movement or philosophy? Is it a particular government department? A website? A place for people to share/post/discuss?
I love brainstorming titles but they might be more relevant if I know what I'm naming! :-)
Other ideas:
CitizenVoice
OpenVoice
ShoutOut
NowWhat?
GovNow (Hmmmm. Did someone already say that one?)
GovUS (also sounds vaguely familiar...?)
Peeps.gov
I'll stop...for now.
However, in the spirit of real participation, I'm suggesting WiiGov, with an accompanying game that both people in nursing homes and kids in day care can use to virtually navigate the Halls of Congress, shake down lobbyists, etc. People from the Sunlight Foundation will NOT be allowed to play.
My two cents. I realize that means I'm not in the running for the mug. ;-)
EngageGov
EngageUS
ConnectUS
GovLink
GovConnect
GovBook
GovLoop
A good debate but I agree with Mark's earlier post...people need to stop talking and start doing. There are a lot of easy wins to improve government using Gov 2.0 (or whatever) tools/approaches. The greatest value of most of these projects is that they are quick and cheap rather than the typical 5-year, $100 million government project.
Let's say government is top down and 2.0 is bottom up (grassroots, etc) But a well run government listens to its people, allows for open dialogue, and if government is wise, then make an informed decision about policy etc... in essence acting like a true democracy.
trueGOV
or
truGOV
Leave Government 2.0 alone!
*though i do like "OpenGov", too.
Trying for second place.
==RANT OVER==
Similar to GDP and GNP, maybe it will satisfy the government's need for a more perfect acronym.
If a url is needed - for a government equivalent of Facebook so one could actually get to know one's leaders and civil servants directly from the source maybe these could be considered:
glp.gov
us.gov
new.gov
open.gov
agencies.gov
fed.gov
federal.gov
"Few ideas are correct ones, and which they are none can tell, but with words we govern men."
I have participated in similar discussions, within the USG, about possibly changing the name of Intelink and Intellipedia. In this regard, I see these USG "Intelligence" community derived labels as having a lot of baggage, and as not being particularly helpful in terms of breaking down barriers among USG agencies, US citizens and indeed the nations and peoples of the world – entities that all need to do a much better job sharing information vital to U.S. and international peace, prosperity and security.
Also in regards to choosing appropriate and useful names to describe our policy efforts, about a decade ago now I undertook a quixotic attempt to help end the use of the retrograde and counterproductive term "the post-Cold War era.†My suggestion was a U.S. foreign policy described by the term "Fair Peace." See this site for more detail on this suggestion: http://web.archive.org/web/20040210181109/http:...
Back to the specific subject at hand ... I do appreciate the term "OpenGov." As late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan wrote in his 1998 book Secrecy:
"The 'what-ifs' are intriguing. What if the United States had recognized Soviet weakness earlier on and accordingly kept its own budget in order, so that upon the breakup of the Soviet Union a momentous economic aid program could have commenced? What if we had better calculated the forces of ethnicity so that we could have avoided going directly from the 'end' of the Cold War to a new Balkan War, leaving little attention and far fewer resources for the shattered Soviet empire? There it rests, with the one remaining large and positive possibility. Openness. East and West paid hideous costs for keeping matters of state closed to the people whom the states embodied ... A case can be made that ... secrecy is for losers. For people who don't know how important information really is. The Soviet Union realized this too late. Openness is now a singular, and singularly American, advantage. We put it in peril by poking along in the mode of an age now post. It is time to dismantle government secrecy, this most pervasive of Cold War-era regulations. It is time to begin building the supports for the era of openness that is already upon us."
However, I understand “openness†and “OpenGov†more as means to the ends we are seeking, and not our actual goal. Harkening back to my earlier suggestion for a new “Fair Peace†name for U.S. foreign policy in a new geo-political era, I would suggest that our new name to replace "Gov 2.0" specifically speak to what we hope to accomplish, not how we hope the means we intend to use.
Reprising yet updating Harry Truman's vision, I suggest the "Digital Fair Deal" as our new name and agenda. As Truman put it: "Every segment of our population and every individual has a right to expect from our Government a fair deal." The information age and its empowering digital technology makes engagement by every segment of our society and by every individual a much more achievable initiative, thereby making the policy goals of a fair deal much more feasible. A Digital Fair Deal would also speak to the U.S. Government’s foreign policy agenda, or as Truman once put it: "What we envisage is a program of (international) development based on the concepts of democratic fair-dealing."
Obviously this name change proposal goes well beyond the concept of "government," and undertakes to provide a outcome-focused slogan that typically would like come from some official, high level member of the new government. Yet substantially changing things, and expanding who has impact beyond traditional offical roles, is essentially what this sort of initiative is all about.
Gov 2.0-2U.
Yes, it keeps the overused Gov 2.0. But it gives it context with the reason for why we need Gov 2.0.
And while the tech folk have tired of 2.0, the average folk are only getting around to understanding it.
I should know , I sell Internet connections for a living.
Thanks for the informative blog.
Patrick
Government for the people!